User:Dlu16/David Bodian/Jordanj140 Peer Review

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? Rbachan1 and Dlu16
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Dlu16/David Bodian

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * The lead has not been updated to reflect the new content added. However, I do not think that the lead needs to be dramatically updated because the lead is already quite satisfactory and the new content added was mostly detail, not major ideas.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * The lead does include an introductory sentence that clearly describes the article's topic, David Bodian.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The lead includes a brief description of most of the article's major sections, but does not talk about Bodian's honors and awards, which is the heading of one of the major sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * The lead does not include information that is not present in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The Lead is quite concise

Lead evaluation
Overall, the lead is quite strong and concise -- it provides a good overview of who David Bodian was and his important acheivements. However, I believe that lead could be improved if it mentioned some of Bodian's notable awards as his honors and awards make up a major section in the article.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Much of the content added is relevant to the topic and provides more great detail about Bodian. However, I do agree with what article owners brought up in their sandbox in that specifically bringing up Bodian's letter to A. McGehee Harvey may be unneccessary because the letter does not add much to the article and could be simply summarized in a sentence.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * The content added is up-to-date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There are no content gaps or irrelevant content in the article.

Content evaluation
Overall, the content added provides more great detail on the life of David Bodian and enhances the understanding of the article. I did not see any outdated content or recognize any content gaps and irrelevant content. The change I brought up in the first question is a very minor complaint, but nevertheless, I think the article could be improved if the change is incorporated.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * The content added is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, there are not any claims that appear heavily biased.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * The article is quite balanced in its viewpoints.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, the content added does not attempt to persuade the reader.

Tone and balance evaluation
The tone and balance of this article is great -- the tone is very neutral and the viewpoints are well-balanced. I thought the writers did a great job in preserving neutrality and balance in the article.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * All the content is backed up by a reliable source of information.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * The sources are quite thorough, but in terms in quantity, it seems a little lacking (but not necessarily a concern since the sources are quite thorough).
 * Are the sources current?
 * Some of the sources are current, but not all. However, that should be fine because this article is a biography on a deceased individual.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes, all the links work.

Sources and references evaluation
Overall, the sources used are credible, current, and provide thorough information of Bodain. However, I did notice that the number of sources used seemed a little lacking, perhaps the article could be improved by finding a couple more sources to incorporate in the article.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The content added is well-written, the article is very concise and clear to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * I did not notice any grammatical or spelling errors in the content added.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The content added is pretty well-organized, but I did notice that in the biography section, some of the chronology is a little confusing. For example, in the biography section, there is a content change from his career to his personal life, but in that content change, the chronology goes from 1977 to 1948.

Organization evaluation
Overall, the article is very well-written and well-organized, but at times in the biography section, I thought the chronology of how information was organized was a little confusing. Look at the previous question for an example.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation
There are no images present on the sandbox article.

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
The writers did a great job in adding relevant content and detail that improve the overall quality of the article. With the additions of more information on his research, career, and personal life, I thought the article got a lot more complete. In specific, I thought the writers did a great job with selecting what content to add because all of the added content were relevant details, well-sourced, and neutral in tone. However, there are a couple improvements that I would like to bring up. The lead could be slightly improved by making sure to mention all the major headings in the article and the organization of the article could be improved by making the content flowed more chronologically. Additionally, regarding the sources, the article could be improved by adding more sources (if new sources add more relevant detail), more citations in the "Pioneer work on polio vaccines" section, and an image of David Bodain.